Talk:Crisis pregnancy center/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"Attacks and violence"

I've removed this section as failing both WP:V and WP:NPOV. The sources do not support a "wave of violence". The best quality source added isn't even about anything that happened, but what could happen. Some of the sources don't mention crisis pregnancy centers at all, and some aren't reliable for this topic. Adding a whole new header for "attacks and violence" is a clear NPOV issue as written. It's entirely possible some of the recent events are worth including, but this doesn't seem like the wiki-compliant way to do it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Elaborating:

• In May 2022, after an advance leak of the Dobbs decision of June 24, a wave of violence against CPCs began in the United States. A bulletin by the Department of Homeland Security, issued on the day Dobbs was released, warned authorities that incidents of extremist violence could increase and persist for weeks afterward. - doesn't mention CPCs at all, isn't about any documented "attacks and violence at all", just about what may happen regarding abortion.
• At least 19 incidents of property destruction, vandalism, arson, and firebombing were reported by CPCs and other anti-abortion groups. The newly-formed pro-abortion rights terrorist group Jane's Revenge claimed responsibility for many of them. - This is, I think, something that should probably mentioned in the article in some way. I removed it because this version is problematic (and because of how it was added). The source it primarily relies on is the Catholic News Agency, which doesn't help a lot with WP:WEIGHT. AZCentral is ok, but we'd need other sources, too. I see The Guardian has a story focused on this subject which may be of use.

It seems to me that what makes sense is to think about how best to update the article in light of all of the recent Dobbs-related news/events, and include the latter part in that hypothetical section. Thoughts? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it fails both WP:V and WP:NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

@Horse Eye's Back and Rhododendrites: Sorry to ping; unsure if this is on your watchlists and I wanted to be sure you saw it ASAP. Since you both had previously concurred on the removal of material related to (suspected) attacks against CPCs, I wanted to run my one-shot edit on the topic past you two and any pagewatchers. Before I say anything else, I have declared biases on abortion (see my user page; this may be my first edit on the subject outside of typo corrections) and have personally interacted with the author of The Hill article (was actually happily surprised when I went to put her name as the author–good on her for the swanky gig).

As for the material I added, I tried to stick exclusively to sourced content that dealt directly with actual events rather than simply speculation. I deemed the CNN article suitable as it stated DHS gave prior incidents as a justification for their memo and afforded an overview of the backdrop for these incidents (Dobbs). The sourcing on the Madison attack comes from both The Guardian and The Hill–the former is essentially just to confirm details described vaguely in the latter, as only in the latter is an explicit connection between CPCs and the Madison attack made. I have cited CNA–with inline attribution for reasons that should be obvious–in a limited context simply to provide a "total"; I would prefer sourcing not have "Catholic" or "Christian" in the title if we are to include any more specific incidents, particularly against Catholic-affiliated centers.

The section title was something I had to mull over for a bit, but taking a cue from the Abortion clinic article, I went with as plain a title as is appropriate. Also drawing from the clinic article, I deferred to full section rather than a subsection. Due to most of these incidents still being under investigation, I hesitated to outright use the word "attack"; the CNN source seems to confirm that at least some incidents are being officially declared attacks by the relevant authorities. I refrained from the word "violence" as no direct bodily harm has been inflicted against employees of the CPCs, though I do include the injuries from the New York fire. I hope that this explanation is satisfactory and the material I inserted provides ample non-POV and non-UNDUE coverage of this touchy subject. Please ping me in responses; as a matter of principle I will not be putting abortion-related articles on my watchlist. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh and @Elizium23: you were the first to have your hand at this material, so your insight and consideration is also appreciated. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Noticed you again removed reliably-sourced content without giving appropriate reasoning. Unless you can definitively evidence that "pro-abortion" is an unacceptable POV term–despite its use by a reliable neutral source in the article–we typically don't delete sourced content (heck, we even keep the unfortunate alternative for "Roma" around). Also, in the future, citing a Wikipedia article is inappropriate for trying to prove reliable sourcing is errant. I would encourage you to reflect on your own POV–as you gave an easily disproved statement as justification for your first edit (see this embracement of "pro-abortion")–and not remove sourced content to match it. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I am simply following normal Wikipedia policy for abortion topics. Mainstream news organizations also use the terms pro-choice and pro-life, but we don't (unless it is a direct quote.) Pro-choice, pro-life and pro-abortion are all considered non-neutral. The term "pro-abortion" appears only once in the article Abortion debate, and that is when it is being discussed as a term. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Again, the contents of another Wikipedia article are not policy—nor is there an established policy (if there was, I would hope you would have posted it here). What is absolutely policy is reliable sourcing. Please do not cite a Wikipedia article again. Thanks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I will continue to link to whatever article I wish for whatever purpose I wish. In this case the link was to show current consensus. None of the wording at that linked article is there by accident; it is a demonstration of hard-fought consensus.

Rather than specific written policy, we have longstanding consensus regarding non-neutral terms used in the abortion debate. The term "pro-abortion" redirects to Abortion rights movements with a note about how "pro-abortion" is non-neutral. Since 2013, the pro-life page has been moved to Anti-abortion movements. All the pro- terms are non-neutral in the abortion debate. The anti-choice term is non-neutral, of course. But anti-abortion is considered accurate and neutral, because pro-lifers are against abortion. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Clearly, there's a disconnect. We can not unilaterally judge one group to be part of the pro-abortion rights movement—there has to be sourcing for that. If sourcing concurs that an entity is not merely pro-abortion rights (that is, not simply advocating for various measures of legality) but rather repeatedly identified as also strictly "pro-abortion", then we have sourcing. Sourcing policy will always take primacy over localized consensus (which, again, is not what you linked to). Again, unless you can find a way for reliable sourcing to rank lower than a consensus found on another page, we have to go with the sourcing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This is not a localized issue. Your desired wording is non-neutral. The WP:ONUS is on you to prove otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The following neutral sources refer specifically to Jane's Revenge (no one else) as "pro-abortion": Newsweek, Longmont Leader, CBS News, KCRG. There are others, but let's not race to the bottom. The source cited in the article uses "pro-abortion". Anything else is WP:SYNTH. Also, typically, the onus is on an editor to justify deleting sourced content. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Also, please link to the consensus; looking at the talk page, the only consensus on there is that the general movement should not be called "pro-abortion" (kinda an obvious one). The redirect was modified in 2018, so presumably there's a consensus from around there; however, until found, I would say that there is no consensus on the term as a whole (and the non-neutral template should be removed from the redirect). ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, yes! You are free to link to whatever you please. However, please do not cite articles as sourcing for language no present in citations. A request is not a mandate, and you are welcome to continue linking, even if it goes against actually established policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This is just about the terms? Yeah, Wikipedia typically uses "anti-abortion" and "abortion rights" or the like, not "pro-choice" or "pro-life" (which are both imprecise slogans) and certainly not "pro-abortion" which is nonsensical and is only really used by the anti-abortion crowd. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Sure, but this isn't a typical group, one that is specifically described differently in the cited sources and elsewhere. I would prefer not to draw equivalence between groups like Jane's Revenge and, say, NARAL. One is explicitly about legal rights advocacy, another is a fundamentalist organization that is treated as such in reliable sourcing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure I see the problem with "pro-abortion rights", for groups which are in favor of abortion rights. I believe it is more or less disingenuous to claim that groups such as Planned Parenthood and the Guttmacher Institute are not "pro-abortion" since they are providers of abortion services and therefore have a fiduciary responsibility to develop, promote, and expand abortion services by their medical providers and clinics. Elizium23 (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you articulate why you prefer "pro-abortion rights" to "abortion rights" or something similar? Certainly the latter is more common (and more precise). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That would depend on the entity being described and the sourcing germane to the description. I won't be speaking in hypotheticals or generalities for this. Elizium23 (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"strictly socially conservative viewpoint" in 2nd paragraph should be edited for grammar, clarity, and objectivity

2nd paragraph starts: "CPCs are typically run by Christians who adhere to a strictly socially conservative viewpoint."

It is ambiguous as to what what "strictly" is modifying here. As an adverb it most naturally would refer to the manner of the holding of the conservative viewpoint -- describing the subjective holding of the position. Syntactically it seems to have originally been used as an adjective however, modifying "conservative." If this was the intent, "strict socially conservative viewpoint" would have been most proper.

The cited source does not have wording to this effect, despite the following line taken nearly directly verbatim from said article. Based on this positioning, the Wikipedia line seems to refer to the paragraph in the cited article just prior to this. It could very well be argued based on that paragraph that just the opposite of the line in the Wikipedia article is expressed -- citing (the not strict socially conservative) Hilary Clinton about the importance of education and birth control as a way to avoid the sad reality of abortion.

This gets to the point of objectivity. The line is not supported by the cited source, and serves to portray a certain viewpoint as extreme/unfavorable.

For the above reasons, I suggest removing the word "strictly."

Or just move the word: "who adhere strictly to a socially conservative viewpoint".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

1 RR request

I'm letting everyone here know that I've made a request at WP:AE for WP:1RR to be placed on this page (not the talk page) for a while: [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Is this just a U.S. thing?

Looking at this article, it doesn't seem to mention any particular geographic region. But it seems like the content and sourcing pertain to the U.S.A. Should we clarify that? Or is this a more global phenomenon, and if so, can we clarify that? Marquardtika (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Marquardtika I know that there are some that exist in Canada although it does seem to be more of an American thing in general. Clovermoss (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Since my ancedote can't really be used in an article, here are some reliable sources that talk about these centres existing in Canada: [2][3][4] It was even an issue in the 2021 federal election campaign. We don't have Roe v. Wade but we have R v Morgentaler, for people interested in the broader sense of abortion rights in Canada. Clovermoss (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Quick answer from the first reference in Heartbeat International (crisis pregnancy center network): "Heartbeat International (HBI), the biggest crisis pregnancy center network in the world. HBI has over 2000 affiliated organizations in 50 countries, .." But I personally am not knowledgeable about these in countries other than the US. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Why this removal?

I don't understand this removal by Pickalittletalkalittle: [5]. The edit summary says that it's WP:SYNTH to connect false advertising to the description as fake. However, most of the cited sources say directly that the term is used because of the false representations. It seems to me that this edit was an error. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

" Because their advertising often suggests falsely that they provide abortions, CPCs are sometimes referred to as '''fake abortion clinics''' by scholars, the media, and supporters of [[abortion rights]]."

Thanks for the response, @Tryptofish. After I read through the cited sources, it was too far of a leap to say that just because the cited sources agree that patients get confused about the offerings of the CPCs, the cited sources are also claiming that the CPCs claim to provide abortions. That conclusion was inferred through synthesis by editors, which violates WP:SYNTH.

I really liked your edit though. It's better than how I had left it: "CPCs are sometimes referred to as fake abortion clinics by scholars, the media, and supporters of abortion rights due to deceptive advertising practices that may obscure the clinic's anti-abortion agenda to potential patients seeking abortions." Well done. Thanks for improving this.

Today, I removed the implicating word "deceptive" so we stay neutral, per WP:NPOV. Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

You can restore "deceptive" because it is supported by scholarly sources such as International Journal of Women's Health and Contraception. Rebecca Eisenberg's "Beyond Bray" lays it out plainly as deceptive, published by the Yale Journal of Law and Feminism. The fact that they are deceptive is the whole point of this article. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with the revised version of the sentence: [6]. But don't give me credit for it. I guess some of us fish look alike. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate, misinformation

I don’t see any meaningful connection between the civil, productive discussion below and this rambling wall of baseless transphobic POV Dronebogus (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The definition of a crisis pregnancy center is not as stated. This is a completely blatant example of political misinformation. A crisis pregnancy center is not a trap to torture pregnant "people." Some women have unplanned pregnancies and need help and resources. It seems as if the writer, who's article has been accepted by Wikipedia, is promoting the opinion that if a pregnancy is unplanned the baby should be killed and anyone who thinks otherwise is irresponsible including the mother. This is an example of political campaigning intentionally disguised as information. No one says 'tough luck' to the diabetic who can't afford insulin, "You should have tried making more money while you were eating all those cheeseburgers." 108.17.88.39 (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's much doubt that the basic purpose for their establishment was to persuade women from having abortions. Naturally, they don't just cast these women aside once that has been accomplished. That said, I'm sure that some pregnant women, who never intended to have an abortion in the first place, come to them for assistance, So, I will add the word "primarily" to the sentence in question. Goodtablemanners (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding "primarily", although I don't think it's absolutely necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Waxman report material

The Waxman report material, if used at all, should go in the False medical information section of the article rather than the Legality of advertising methods section. One should also keep in mind that this source was not produced by the full Congressional committee that Waxman sat on, but rather by the staff of the minority party members. Goodtablemanners (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd be fine with moving it to the other section. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The Waxman report has been cited by relatively neutral mainstream media sources who portray Waxman's findings as authoritative and correct.[7][8][9][10][11][12] All of these sources describe the Waxman report as proving that false medical information is being given out by CPCs. So yes, the report should be shifted to the section about false medical information. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I've moved it to that section. I also revised it to focus more on the false information, and less on the partisan politics, as well as revising the language so that it is no longer a verbatim copy from the (public domain) source. But I think it is clear that it belongs in the article, and should not be deleted entirely. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm unpersuaded by the argument that, because the Waxman report is a primary source, we must present it as "according to": [13], [14]. (I'm also concerned about an appearance of slow edit-warring by staying just outside of the 72-hour restriction, something that will not play well at AE if it continues.) If we had sourcing that cast doubt on the report, that would be another thing. But as Binksternet shows just above, numerous secondary sources cite the Waxman findings as being reliable and meaningful. It is clear to our readers that we are sourcing the content to that source, so there is nothing that would mislead our readers. Instead, treating the content as "according to" comes across as trying to cast doubt on the source in a way that falls afoul of WP:NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm okay with Avatar's wording here [15]. For me, the Waxman Committee material is excess because there's already plenty of better sources for CPC misinformation. We don't really need to include a partisan political document that bases its conclusions on the responses of twenty-three of the thousands of existing CPCs. However, it isn't worth a battle from this quarter. Goodtablemanners (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I also support Avatar's version. I do not object to attribution, only to attribution that implies doubt. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)